Is Gender Critical the new Pro Life?

“A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men.”
― Gloria Steinem

Drat, missed the badge picture...

Chewbacca

And it's definitely natal women who are being discriminatory is it? Are you sure about that?

Adrian Harrop GP shared this picture on his Twatter feed with the following tag: Rx: One (1) x Generous Spray, QDS; + unlimited PRN usage in the event of any unexpected
trans-exclusionary encounters! #terfrepellent #transgender #transrightsarehumanrights #transrights.”

Presumably his employers didn't like it either, hence his tribunal.

I don't think I said that I said discrimination wasn't feminist. Some people are discriminatory. They are not feminist.

Remember the gender-non-conforming people of the 70s and 80s?
They didn't claim to be the sex they're not.
That's how to do it.

trisher

“A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men.”
― Gloria Steinem

Couldn't agree more. I am not a man-hater (or to use the sociological jargon you prefer, an exclusionary feminist).

I recognise the humanity of all humans - it is just that I am alert to the inequalities that more often apply to the female variety, and as a feminist if all else is equal I will put the needs of women first.

It's an interesting choice of quote from you, however, as you don't know what a woman is, so I'm not sure how far you are likely to understand it.

trisher there could be some excuse for what you are posting if you were new to the subject but as you are not.... idk.

Hint : sex & gender are two different things.

Yes nobody thinks that is what gender critical is. I mean I am laughing that you think that's what it means. It's the exact opposite. All gc feminists that I know think gender is a form of oppression, they think people should present in any way they want but that the way you present is nothing to do with sex. They also understand that women face disadvantages due to their biological sex.

Interesting I'm supposed to know what a woman is but no one can tell me how I identify one or if I have to ask "Are you an adult human female" every time I meet someone.
I've asked for advice but it's never forthcoming.
But you are exclusionary Doodledog you won't let transwomen be women.

You constantly police gender trisher, you talk about dressing like a woman, living like a woman, gender critical people dont believe in those stereotypes.

Men cant be women trisher. Doodledog has absolutely no control over that.

Galaxy

You constantly police gender trisher, you talk about dressing like a woman, living like a woman, gender critical people dont believe in those stereotypes.

Exactly.

There is rarely a thread on this subject that doesn't see term 'presenting as a woman' used by you.

The position of GCFs is that gender is a learnt set of norms, which are fluid and depend on things such as time, geography, social class and yes, sex. But they are not immutable. Things like long hair are sometimes seen as feminine, at others a signifier of wealth for men, and at others as a signifier of rebellion. Clothing also has fashions, rather than being a fixed set of male/female items. Make-up is sometimes acceptable for men and at others it is a purely female thing. And so on.

Therefore the concept of 'presenting as a woman' is meaningless. People can 'present' as they wish, and good luck to them, but they will not change sex. They will not become the other sex, because that has nothing to do with 'feelings' and nothing to do with presentation. It is about biology.

Transwomen are not women trisher.
You don't have to constantly ask. Usually you can tell because we learn the differences between female & male very early.
In most situations it won't matter if you can't tell.
In situations where it does matter, it has to be a social convention (as it has been until now) of who uses facilities for females or for males, or reality has to be recognised by those in charge of, say, children's holiday camps, hospital wards, prisons.

In situations where it does matter, it has to be a social convention (as it has been until now) of who uses facilities for females or for males, or reality has to be recognised by those in charge of, say, children's holiday camps, hospital wards, prisons.

And crisis centres and safe houses where women and their children can be kept safe from male abuse and brutality.

Absolutely Chewbacca.

True Chewbacca and your quote from FarNorth sums it up.

Chewbacca

^In situations where it does matter, it has to be a social convention (as it has been until now)^ of who uses facilities for females or for males, or reality has to be recognised by those in charge of, say, children's holiday camps, hospital wards, prisons.

And crisis centres and safe houses where women and their children can be kept safe from male abuse and brutality.

I don’t understand why anyone can claim to be feminist but don’t understand this

Iam64

Chewbacca

In situations where it does matter, it has to be a social convention (as it has been until now) of who uses facilities for females or for males, or reality has to be recognised by those in charge of, say, children's holiday camps, hospital wards, prisons.

And crisis centres and safe houses where women and their children can be kept safe from male abuse and brutality.

I don’t understand why anyone can claim to be feminist but don’t understand this

First of all safe spaces have to be safe from anyone who is abusive. It's the reason that risk assessment is done before anyone is admitted to refuges because when they were originally opened the assumption that a safe house was a place where women and their children can be kept safe from male abuse and brutality. proved completely wrong and women who were abusive and who threatened other women were admitted. There is no reason to assume that transwomen are any different to real women and they will need risk assessment. But imagining it's just men who abuse is wrong and dangerous. And it dismisses the very real experiences of women abused or controlled by other women.
I don't understand how anyone whatever they claim to be doesn't understand this.
It's not feminist to assume all women are good or behave well.

Just to unpick this, for a minute. Are you saying that in a lesbian relationship there could be an abusive partner? Yes, of course there could. Is there much chance that if the abused woman went to a refuge that her partner would be allowed in? Not really. The refuge would have details of the partner, probably a photo, and would block her access.

The point about refuges is not that abusive partners are likely to follow their victims, but that they are places where vulnerable women and their children have gone for protection. If a man who wanted to target vulnerable women wanted to, he could declare himself a woman and be admitted. There are huge issues for refuges with this, as if they refuse access to men who say they are women they are accused of transphobia. The end result is that women who need space away from men, who are potentially traumatised, find themselves housed with male bodied people, some of whom are of the obviously masculine variety.

I dare say that a psychopathic woman may pretend to have been abused in order to gain access to a refuge, but respectfully suggest that this is more likely in the plot of a B movie than likely to happen in reality. The vast majority of violent criminals are male, and the real issue is, as ever, that men are (generally) stronger and more powerful than (most) women.

This strength differential (which, before you bring in your friends who confound this stereotype, is not universal but usual) is the reason for having safe spaces in the first place, and the reason that they are based on sex, and not on gender. It is not that posters on this thread are too uninformed or dim to realise that not all women are good or behave well. It is that we have the sense to understand that sex-based safe spaces are there for a reason.

Love your post trisher. It says the same things all over again with the addition of an abusive lesbian.
Feminists who have the interests of human adult females at heart would of course consider this.
For the rest of your post, I recommend you read Doodledog’s post. She puts it so much better than I can.

Doodledog I don't think women's violence is confined to lesbian relationships. I do think there is something in the work of Erin Pizzey on the subject when she describes a culture of violence that includes both men and women. I don't agree with all of her conclusions but I think the idea that violence is for some people an essential part of their lives because of their childhood experiences is probably true. So a woman who enters a refuge needs assessment because if she is from such a background when her violent home life is removed she may still carry her need for violence with her into the refuge, and use violence against someone there.

I dare say that a psychopathic woman may pretend to have been abused in order to gain access to a refuge, but respectfully suggest that this is more likely in the plot of a B movie than likely to happen in reality. The vast majority of violent criminals are male, and the real issue is, as ever, that men are (generally) stronger and more powerful than (most) women
So a woman who is violent must be "psychopathic"?
But men are just naturally violent?
Do you have any evidence for those ideas?

This is an interesting article, and those who can't concentrate for more than a couple of minutes can go straight to the summary. For those with longer concentration spans there is a download of the full report available.

trisher

^I dare say that a psychopathic woman may pretend to have been abused in order to gain access to a refuge, but respectfully suggest that this is more likely in the plot of a B movie than likely to happen in reality. The vast majority of violent criminals are male, and the real issue is, as ever, that men are (generally) stronger and more powerful than (most) women^
So a woman who is violent must be "psychopathic"?
But men are just naturally violent?
Do you have any evidence for those ideas?

That the majority of violent crimes are committed by men, and that men are generally stronger than women? There is plenty of evidence for that.

The idea that 'violent women must be psychopathic and that men are just naturally violent' is yours, not mine. I said no such thing.

You really are clutching at straws even more than usual to try to prove an untenable point. You are, frankly, making yourself look rather foolish, and this sort of thing is not adding anything to the debate.

Doodledog if its foolish to recognise that some women are violent and that risk assessment is necessary then there are an awful lot of foolish people about.
How feminist is it and how does it add to the debate to call another woman who is presenting quite a reasonable point of view "foolish"?
You on the other hand have introduced into the discussion lesbians, and psychopaths. Do you think these are the only sort of women who can be violent?

I didn't say that it was foolish to recognise that some women are violent. Or that risk assessment is not necessary. Or that the only women who can be violent are lesbians or psychopaths.

I said that you are twisting my words (as you have just done again) in the hope of point scoring, and it is that which is making you look foolish.